Should Handguns be banned?

Should Handguns be banned?


California Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms describes handguns as tools used in defending oneself as well as valuable resources and properties. It doesn’t define the equipment as weapons used in enhancing killing of innocent individuals. Over the recent past, there have been debates over the control of handguns in the US and they have elicited various responses from different organizations, lobby groups, administrative offices and individuals.

Law abiding citizens vs criminals are participating in interactive debates on who gets the upper hand based on the ban of handguns. In the 1990s, there were more than 30 thousand deaths as a result of handguns ownership reported and recorded in the US. The deaths were as a result of accident, suicide, self-defense and murder among other reasons. At present, handguns are being used by police officers, certified and non certified holders of guns to commit murder and to ensure hunting of individuals who love the activity, to engage in gang activities and to celebrate in the event where people engage in pleasurable shooting sprees.

Based on the California Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms outlined handgun safety measures, there are different users who violate the practices as well as the right to own guns. This paper will as a result analyzes and evaluate is the ban of handguns is essential in the US (CDJ 5). Bruce Gold highlighted ten reasons as to why there is need to ban the equipment.

To start with, even though they are acquired to offer self-protection as noted, crimes at present have continued to be committed and are reported under ‘self-defense’, thus complication the investigations of law enforcers. The government employs police officers to help in maintaining law and order. Therefore, the handguns that are used for self-defense should be banned and civilians are encouraged to depend on police officers in ensuring their safety.

This is based on the fact that law enforcers are better equipped and well trained in the handling of handgun machinery compared to many civilian handgun owners (Bruce 1).

For every a thousand civilian handgun owners, four are used in committing crimes. Only two percent among those owned by civilians are used for self-protection purposes. Therefore, it is clear that the handguns are not essential yet they continue to facilitate crimes in the country because of illegal ownership by the people. Gun Owners Foundation claim that handguns save more lives than they can take away criminals as they are afraid of attacking armed civilians.

As a result, they should be banned because they can be harmful the owner, citizens and neighbors irrespective of how they are utilized especially if the handgun owner is not trained on how to handle the equipment. Besides, households with the equipment without a child safety lock and are living with young children often report gun wounds, accidental shootings, teen murders and suicides. Handguns should as a result be banned on grounds that they are not safe to the holder and those around him or her (Bruce 1).

According to Maitreesh Ghatak, a model that has law abiding civilian as well as a criminal with both owning handguns presents a contest as either of two want to succeed. This translates to a criminal being in a position to use the illegal machine on the victim whom they believe owns a gun that can harm them. Therefore, the two parties opt to use the equipment based on the fact that they assume their counterpart has already made a decision to use the handgun in causing damage, stealing valuables, tangible resources, and properties and causing harm. In the end, criminal acts keep increasing as well as murders, accidental shootings and homicides (Maitreesh 2).

Civilians according to the constitution of the US are not required to take law into their hands unless they do not respect the draft and are criminals. They should depend on the police to provide protection against rape, assault, burglary, murder and other criminal activities that encourage civilians to use their handguns.

Coupled with the fact that many people who own handguns do not respect the authorities because of their over dependence attitude towards firearms, handguns should be banned as a way of enhancing trust and reliance of authorities and the government in carrying out their constitutional rights while respecting the US constitution (Bruce 1).

Brian Micklethwait noted that laws against handgun ownership doesn’t guarantee criminals will surrender their illegally acquired the equipment. Anti-ownership laws on the contrary make it easy for armed criminals to engage in unlawful acts against innocent civilians. However, he acknowledged that if every individual maintains the law and their civilian tasks while ensuring those around them are safe, the ban of the firearms would not be necessary.

The United States is ranked among top countries where many civilians own handguns as they can be acquired legally and at an affordable price by the citizens. Even so, there are still no strict measures in ensuring the equipment do not fall in the wrong hands with respect to criminals are greatly reduced. To reduce this kind of weakness, handguns should be banned with law enforcers being the only people to hold them as they facilitate maintenance of law and order and related duties (Brian 1).

According to Nan Desuka however, handguns do not kill innocent people but criminals who are individuals who utilize them to commit illegal activities leading to loss of lives. As a result, it is clear that the issue of increasing suicides, homicide and murders does not necessary emanate from ownership of guns. These issues on the contrary are as a result of criminal activities.

The author supported the claims under the ‘’Guns do not kill people…..criminals do’’ slogan. Additionally, handguns should not be banned as outlawing them does not guarantee an end to criminal acts. A criminal determined, desiring and willing to kill will go an extra mile even without utilizing a handgun because there are many ways of carrying out the mission (Nan 10).

Several authors from the Wall Street Journal wrote a piece on murder in the US. The writer noted that killings in the US between 2000 and 2010 are committed under various circumstances, races and genders. Within the years, more than one hundred and sixty five thousand murders as well as homicides were recorded in the US except the state of Florida.

They were mainly attributed to arguments, robbery, police killings, narcotic drugs, and influence from drugs, alcohol, arson, baby sitters murders, sexual offenses, motor vehicle theft, gambling, gangs and abortion among others. The weapons utilized in carrying out the offenses included blunt objects, fire, drugs, knives, explosives, poison and strangulation, asphyxiation and pushing from a window and use of firearms.

Even though the equipment contributes to criminal acts, they should not be singled out as the only causes (Rob, Madelijne, Jon and Palani 1). Handguns owned for self-protection as Bruce Gold notes were witnessed over two million years ago with many civilians committing ‘non-event’ crime, hence, ethical to ban them from present setting in the society. Additionally, they should be banned from all the states to prevent criminal migration.

This is based on the notification of Bruce that criminals migrate to the States with less stringent firearm laws. Banning the equipment, havens of firearms for example the state of Virginia can reduce the rate of criminal activities. It should also be considered that not all civilians can afford to meet charges involved in purchasing a handgun.

If individuals purchased handguns, not all of them can meet the costs of purchasing. If they purchased for self-defense purposes, this can translate to unarmed civilians falling victims of crime as well as accidental shooting from those owning them. The constitution of the US aims at achieving equality amongst all. Unless all citizens are given an opportunity to own a handgun, they should be illegalized because they widen economic gap between the poor and the rich with the rich being majority of the owners while the poor fall victims.

It is therefore legally and ethically right to propose the ban of handguns based on the fact that they complicate investigations by law enforces in the event of investigating a case between a civilian and a criminal.


Handguns are owned by people who believe that they guarantee self-protection to their property and their lives. Even so, police officers are employed by the state and required to provide enhanced security to citizens in a country. People should depend on employed and hired security personnel without necessarily owning handguns. To ensure equality, the work of security officers should be emphasized to eliminate any form of police investigations compromise and to reduce activities of criminals including theft of motor vehicle and robbery, thus, the need to ban handguns.

Works Cited

Brian, Micklethwait. Why Guns Should Not be Illegal, Political Notes; Libertarian alliance, 1995. Print.

Bruce, Gold. Gun Control-Simple Solutions for Simple Minds: Ten Good Reasons to Ban Guns, Web, 2002. Print.

California Department of Justice (CDJ). Handgun Safety Certificate, California Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms, 2012. Web

Maitreesh, Ghatak. Gun Control and the Self-Defense Argument, University of Chicago, Department of Economics, 2001. Print.

Nan, Desuka. Why Handguns must be Outlawed, Mountain View, Mayfield Publishing Company, 1993. Print.

Rob, Barry, Madeline Farbman, Jon Keegan, and Palani Kumanan. Murder in America, The Wall Street Journal, 2013, Web.